(9/13/00, Vagator, Goa,
India (wpl)) The headline to the article in the paper this morning
read, "Activists vow to end attacks on 'witches' ". Apparently
there are incidents of tribal women in a northeast part of India being
killed or ostracized due to their alleged practice of sorcery. Sounds
familiar to anyone who remembers ninth-grade American History. Americans
tend to look back on the Salem Witch Trails as a period of thinking gone
awry. What started out as a desire for God, safety, family, community,
morals, and all kinds of good, turned into a terrible evil, where many
innocent people were punished, tortured, and killed. (Some of the
accused weren't quite so innocent. They actually were guilty of
the heinous and reprehensible crime of witchcraft.)

Of course, history is full of examples
where good intentions went bad, from the Inquisition, to the caste system
here in India, to McCarthyism, to many if not most wars. As we all know
America is currently in the middle of the longest declared war in its
entire history. Thirty-two years ago President Nixon officially declared
the War on Drugs, naming Elvis Presley (a man who later died of a drug
overdose) as our nationís first drug czar. We as a nation agreed to fight
and fund this war because we see that drugs bring crime and addiction,
and loss of safety, family, community, morals, and most other good. But
is this really the case? Is this a just and justified war? What are the
costs, and what are the results? Are we thinking straight, or is this
another example of thinking gone awry?

In 1968 the federal expenditure on
the War on Drugs was $65 million. The Reagan administration spent an average
of $3 billion per year on it, the Bush administration spent $10 billion
per year, and the Clinton administration has raised the ante to $17 billion
per year. We actually spend $3.5 million per day just to imprison drug
offenders. What are we getting for our money? Well, the United States
now has over two million people behind bars, incarcerating more of its
citizens (690 out of every 100,000) than any country but Russia. The number
of federal prisoners is up 450% over the past 15 years. Sixty percent
of those prisoners are drug offenders. Despite these enforcement efforts,
there has been no substantial decrease in crack, heroin, or marijuana
use. According to a United Nations report, prices on cocaine have actually
fallen 45%, and heroin prices have fallen 60%. Eighty-seven million Americans
admit having used an illicit substance, and twenty-six million admit using
an illicit substance in the past year. Doesnít sound like weíre doing
such a good job at this, does it?

What are some of the (perhaps) unintended
consequences of the War on Drugs? Because they are illegal, drugs are
not priced at their "free market" price, but rather at an inflated,
"black market" price, which goes to cover the perceived risk
that the seller is taking. This makes it quite an attractive business
for someone who is uneducated, unskilled, or for whatever reason willing
to take that risk. Because it is an underground economy, there are not
"fair trade practices" as most business people know them. Thus,
gangs become the drug distributors, and a heroin addiction, which would
cost $4 per day to maintain, becomes one that costs $200 per day. Of course,
gang violence has decimated many inner cities in the U.S., positive male
role models are almost nonexistent in many communities, and the cycle
of crime, addiction, and broken families is vicious. (Approximately 1/3
of African-American males in their 20ís are in prison, on probation, or
on parole. If the trend continues, more African-American children will
go to prison than to college.)

Of course, the effect of this
artificial black market in drugs does not just stay within our borders.
Today black-market profits from the drug trade help support third world
dictators (as in Myanmar) and civil wars all over the globe. Fighting
is currently going on in the Kashmir area in northwest India, reportedly
funded with marijuana and opium profits. Itís supposed to be a beautiful
place, but of course we wonít be going there. The same is happening in
Colombia, Laos, and many other areas that are wracked with civil war.

The War has also corrupted our countryís
system of justice. Mandatory minimum sentences were instituted by a Democratic-controlled
Congress in the effort to get tough on drugs. If an offense meets certain
requirements, it is subject to a mandatory minimum jail sentence of five
or ten years. The result is a prison population increasingly filled with
non-violent drug offenders, and early release programs for many violent
criminals. The mean prison stay for drug trafficking is 40.1 months. Ditto
for murder/manslaughter.

Unlike the rest of our countryís
judicial system, where the judge has discretion concerning sentencing,
the only person given this power in a mandatory minimum case is the prosecutor.
The sentence can be reduced if the defendant provides "substantial
assistance" in helping to convict someone else. With such a high
incentive to testify, these witches, er, I mean drug defendants, are naming
anyone they can think of, and these often baseless accusations are used
to seize property, obtain search warrants, make arrests and gain convictions.
(During the Salem witch trials, as well, tremendous pressure was put on
people to "out" others who they suspected of witchcraft. Some
people actually made up stories about their neighbors, just so they themselves
wouldnít be suspected.)

Perhaps the most tragic effect of
the War on Drugs has been how it has affected our Constitutional law and
record on civil rights. The courts have upheld the validity of using "profiles"
for drug couriers, allowing searches based on factors like skin color,
clothing, being the first to board a plane, being the last to board a
plane, or just about any other "evidence". (In Salem in the
1600ís, witches were identified by warts, moles, or other "markings".)
Search warrants are no longer required if police act in "good faith".
Police agencies routinely use asset forfeiture laws to seize property
that may have been used to commit a drug crime, and eighty percent of
the cases involve no criminal prosecution since it is the "property"
accused of committing the crime, and not the property owner. The
police agency itself gets to keep the property if the owner does not successfully
sue to get it back.) Even the Second Amendmentís guarantee of religious
freedom no longer applies if your religion involves the use of an "illicit
substance". (see our Peruvian Ayahuasca experience at
At Home on the Amazon).

The War on Drugs has been going on
so long, that there are now many vested interests, both political and
economic. The politically uncourageous yell and shout that because the
War on Drugs is not working, we must spend even more; we must impose even
harsher penalties. Multi-million dollar business concerns, from the prison
building and staffing business, to arms manufacturers, security companies,
the legal profession, and the drug testing industry, all benefit financially
from the continuation of the War on Drugs. (The recent approval of a $1.2
billion aid package to Colombia fight its War on Drugs included a $400
million purchase of helicopters, coinciding with $700,000 in lobbying
efforts from Bell Helicopter.) But the biggest proponents of all for the
continuation of the War on Drugs are the drug manufacturers and distributors
themselves, the very people the War on Drugs claims as its highest target.
Without the War there would not be the incredible profits that make manufacturing
and distributing illicit drugs so economically worthwhile.

What is our goal, as a society, on
this issue? Do we really want a "Drug Free America", I doubt
if the vast majority of Americans who use caffeine, alcohol, tobacco,
herbal energizers, chocolate, Prozac, sleeping pills, or any other licit
or illicit mind altering substances really think so. (The two biggest
contributors to the Partnership for a Drug-Free America, the alcohol industry,
and the tobacco industry, certainly donít think so.) The sight of three
young boys sniffing glue in the streets of Bombay reinforced my conviction
that this goal is not even remotely possible, even if it were desirable.
People have been using various methods of altering their consciousness
for thousands of years, and will always continue to do so.

I think our goal is the same as itís
always been. We want a happy, healthy, safe, free, clear thinking society.
Even if we do philosophically believe that a person has the right to alter
his or her consciousness in whatever way they please, as long as they
keep it to themselves, we still donít want our kids addicted to drugs
or our leaders making whacked out decisions because theyíre on drugs.
(Iím not sure thatís not already happening though...)

But perhaps thereís a better way.
After all, weíre spending a whole lot of tax dollars and getting some
terrible results. From what Iíve read, to get a 1 % reduction in cocaine
use, we could spend $783 million in interdiction or $34 million in treatment.
What would we get if we took away the profit incentive of drugs, and spent
our money on treatment, education, information and empowerment?

Or, we could stay on track and shoot
for a Drug Free America. First weíll outlaw tobacco, because nobody likes
that anymore. Then alcohol . . . but wait a minute. Didn't
we try that once already?